Patient and family engagement in incident investigations: exploring hospital manager and incident investigators’ experiences and challenges

Objective: There is growing recognition among health care providers and policy makers that when things go wrong, the patient or their families should be heard and participate in the incident investigation process. This paper explores how Dutch hospitals organize patient or family engagement in incident investigations, maps out incident investigators’ experiences of involving patients or their families in incident investigations and identifies the challenges encountered. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with managers and incident investigators in 13 Dutch hospitals. Study participants (n = 18) were asked about the incident investigation routines and their experiences of involving affected patients or family members. Interview transcripts were coded and analysed using thematic content analysis. Results: Our findings reveal that patient or family involvement in incident investigations is typically organized as a one-time interview event. Interviews with patients or their families were considered to be valuable and important in their own right and seen as a way to do justice to the individual needs of the patient or their family. Yet, the usefulness and validity of the patient or family perspective for incident investigations was often seen to be limited, with the professional perspective afforded more weight. This was particularly the case when the patient or their family were unable to provide verifiable details of the incident under investigation. Study participants described challenges when involving patients or family members, including in relation to the available timeframe for incident investigations, legal issues, managing trust and working with intense emotions. Conclusions: We propose that by placing patient and family criteria of significance at the centre of incident investigations (i.e. an ‘emic’ research approach), hospitals may be able to expand their learning potential and improve patient-centeredness following an incident

Regulation of long-term care for older persons:a scoping review of empirical research

OBJECTIVE: Not only care professionals are responsible for the quality of care but other stakeholders including regulators also play a role. Over the last decades, countries have increasingly invested in regulation of Long-Term Care (LTC) for older persons, raising the question of how regulation should be put into practice to guarantee or improve the quality of care. This scoping review aims to summarize the evidence on regulatory practices in LTC for older persons. It identifies empirical studies, documents the aims and findings, and describes research gaps to foster this field.DESIGN: A literature search (in PubMed, Embase, Cinahl, APA PsycInfo and Scopus) was performed from inception up to December 12 th, 2022. Thirty-one studies were included. RESULTS: All included studies were from high-income countries, in particular Australia, the US and Northwestern Europe, and almost all focused on care provided in LTC facilities. The studies focused on different aspects of regulatory practice, including care users' experiences in collecting intelligence, impact of standards, regulatory systems and strategies, inspection activities and policies, perception and style of inspectors, perception and attitudes of inspectees and validity and reliability of inspection outcomes.CONCLUSION: With increasingly fragmented and networked care providers, and an increasing call for person-centred care, more flexible forms of regulatory practice in LTC are needed, organized closer to daily practice, bottom-up. We hope that this scoping review will raise awareness of the importance of regulatory practice and foster research in this field, to improve the quality of LTC for older persons, and optimize their functional ability and well-being.</p

The doctor was rude, the toilets are dirty

Modern healthcare systems are highly data- and evidence-driven. The use of indicators and other performance management devices, introduced by healthcare leaders and regulators to monitor performance and address patient safety matters, are just two examples. Research has shown that the wish to manage and address risks via measuring practices does not always do justice to the complexities of healthcare organization and delivery, for (patient) safety and quality are not only about measurable things. So, while recognized as valuable, there are calls that hard metrics must be supplemented with soft signals – generally known as qualitative or informal data – to gain a better representation of actual performance and tackle safety issues. With the aim to contribute to the theoretical notion that a dialogical approach to knowledge and information-management is a fruitful way to manage and address risks and problems in healthcare, this paper addresses the research question ‘What role do soft signals play in the assessment of patient safety risks and how are these signals employed in everyday regulatory practices?’ We draw from qualitative interviews, observations and document analyses in a multi-year (2015-2019) research project to show that soft signals are vital to everyday regulatory practices, as they provide context to ‘hard’ signals and help to make sense of and weigh risks. Based on these findings we encourage policy makers and regulatory bodies to start an active dialogue on their use of soft signals and develop work models and working routines for discussing them as well as their implications

Epistemic Injustice in Incident Investigations: A Qualitative Study

Serious incident investigations—often conducted by means of Root Cause Analysis methodologies—are increasingly seen as platforms to learn from multiple perspectives and experiences: professionals, patients and their families alike. Underlying this principle of inclusiveness is the idea that healthcare staff and service users hold unique and valuable knowledge that can inform learning, as well as the notion that learning is a social process that involves people actively reflecting on shared knowledge. Despite initiatives to facilitate inclusiveness, research shows that embracing and learning from diverse perspectives is difficult. Using the concept of ‘epistemic injustice’, pointing at practices of someone’s knowledge being unjustly disqualified or devalued, we analyze the way incident investigations are organized and executed with the aim to understand why it is difficult to embrace and learn from the multiple perspectives voiced in incident investigations. We draw from 73 semi-structured interviews with healthcare leaders, managers, healthcare professionals, incident investigators and inspectors, document analyses and ethnographic observations. Our analysis identified several structures in the incident investigation process, that can promote or hinder an actor’s epistemic contribution in the process of incident investigations. Rather than repeat calls to ‘involve more’ and ‘listen better’, we encourage policy makers to be mindful of and address the structures that can cause epistemic injustice. This can improve the outcome of incident investigations and can help to do justice to the lived experiences of the involved actors in the aftermath of a serious incident

How incident reporting systems can stimulate social and participative learning

Incident reporting systems (IRSs) have been widely adopted in healthcare, calling for the investigation of serious incidents to understand what causes patient harm. In this article, we study how the Dutch IRS contributed to social and participative learning from incidents. We integrate quantitative and qualitative data in a mixed-methods design. Between 1 July 2013 and 31 March 2019, Dutch hospitals reported and investigated 4667 incidents. Healthcare inspectors scored all investigations to assess hospitals’ learning process following incidents. We analysed if and on what aspects hospitals improved over time. Additionally, we draw from semi-structured interviews with incident investigators, quality managers, healthcare inspectors and healthcare professionals. Healthcare inspectors score incident investigation reports better over time, suggesting that hospitals conduct better investigations or have become adept at writing reports in line with inspectors’ expectations. Our qualitative data suggests the IRS contributed to practices that support social and participative learning—the professionalisation of incident investigation teams, the increased involvement of patients and families in investigations—and practices that do not—not linking learning from the investigation teams to that of professionals, not consistently monitoring the recommendations that investigations identify. The IRS both hits and misses the mark. We learned that IRSs need to be responsive to the (developing) capabilities of healthcare providers to investigate and learn from incidents, if the IRS is to stimulate social and participative learning from incidents